Arnold Schwarzenegger seemed to grow wiser at the 11th hour and did not make good on his threat to veto hundreds of bills in an effort to bully still warring legislators to come together long enough to craft a state water policy. (It was a tactic that the governor has used throughout his tenure with little success.)
Instead, although the governor did veto 229 bills, he signed 478—among those signed were three forward looking bills that were were seen as surprising and welcome victories by gay, lesbian and transgender communities.
Summaries of the three bills are as follows:
-The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act clarifies that same-sex couples who married out of state before Nov. 4, 2008 are considered married in California. Same-sex couples who have married or will marry out of state after Nov. 5, 2008 will gain all the rights of marriage in California, with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.”
-The LGBT Domestic Violence Programs Expansion Bill will leverage funding for same-sex domestic violence services, helping to sustain the critical organizations that serve the LGBT community in this area.
-The Harvey Milk Day Bill establishes in California the first day of recognition for the slain civil rights hero. Harvey Milk Day will be May 22 of each year, Harvey’s birthday.
In particular, many seemed surprised and heartened by the governor’s signature on the Harvey Milk Day Bill—a bill that he had vetoed in the past. Milk is the second Californian, after naturalist John Muir, to receive the honor.
“We are grateful to the Governor for signing these critical and groundbreaking measures into law and rising above partisan politics to improve the lives of LGBT Californians,” said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. Equality California is the largest gay-rights organization in the state.
The Harvey Milk Day bill marks the first time in the nation’s history that a state will officially recognize and celebrate the contributions of an openly LGBT person with an annual “day of special significance.”
“Californians will now learn about Harvey’s amazing contributions to the advancement of civil rights for decades to come,” Kors said. “He is a role model to millions, and this legislation will help ensure his legacy lives on forever.”
Yep, this is indeed a very good thing.
MID-MORNING POST SCRIPT: I admit, and I’m not happy about this, that I didn’t truly understand of the significance of Harvey Milk until I saw the Sean Penn movie. But then, however belatedly, I really got it.
Now, as a Californian, I’m thrilled that we will be able to officially celebrate the life and work of this astonishingly brave, remarkable and prescient man who, by example as a civil rights hero, was not merely a role model for gay and lesbian kids so long desperately in need of one, but who also pointed the way to a better, braver, saner, more compassionate way of living for every single one of us.
And thank you to Arnold, for doing the right thing. Seriously.
Typical. — A gay-activist group plans to stage a “queer kiss-in . “If we don’t anger people, we’re not doing our jobs.â€
Why the hell did Arnold veto this the first time around ? Seems dumb even for him.
I’m passing on Woody’s comments but my assumption is that he’s expressing his ongoing, near-obsessive concerns about what other men do with their dicks. Weird shit !
I’ll also predict that because I could care less about other men’s dicks – literally have zero interest in monitoring their activities or pronouncing judgements on “correct” vs. “incorrect” disposition of such or on “good” vs. “bad” expressions of adult affection and commitment – Woody will call me “gay.” More weird shit.
“Yep, this is indeed a very good thing.”
Amen to that! Makes me almost forget all the dumb things Arnold’s done in his tenure as gov. It’s great to hear some good news once in awhile–thanks for posting on this, Celeste. Little by little, the news gets better: maybe eventually California will catch up to “conservative” states like Iowa on the gay marriage front. 😉
Who wants to be like Canada? 2010 California Marriage Protection Act
– – –
reg approves of spreading fatal diseases through anal sex between men.
Wonderfully good thing.
One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. Women are inclusive of this age old saying of course. We are getting that much closer to the fair treatment of gays and lesbians. One day, we will be able to speak politically correct about these marriages such as, we no longer call some couples “interracial couples” they are just “couples.”
Obviously, Arnold vetoed some really important bills also but to highlight this being passed in very appropriate b/c we should focus on the good.
Permissiveness led to the death of this queen. Think twice before you condone immoral and unsafe conduct.
Quiz time!
Which of following represent unsafe conduct?
A. Two woman engaging in exclusive sexual activity as lifelong partners.
B. Two men engaging in exclusive sexual activity as lifelong partners.
C. A woman and a man engaging in exclusive sexual activity as lifelong partners.
D. Two people engaging in non-exclusive, unprotected sex, regardless of their gender.
E. I don’t know, or I don’t care because I’d rather build straw-man “arguments”.
Good luck!
Yay for the GAYS! Yay for straights! Yay for the queens, they are fabulous! Yay for the women who love women! Milk, queen or no queen was a hero! Yay for all of open minded people because we are all just people and its never wrong to love your fellow man or woman. Yay!!!! I think the bible even says love thy fellow man! AMEN!!!! Hallelujah. I went “straight” to church to thank God for this.
When is the next parade??? Its going to be great!!! Gay flags for everyone man, woman and child because just a celebration of equality! Finally an unfairly treated community is acknowledge. Yippee!
Celeste, can you let us know if and when LA has a big parade celebrating this?? It would be wonderful to take my kids to. I want them to witness history like they witnessed the first black president being sworn in and him receiving a Nobel Peace Prize. I just love it when people collectively make a giant leap.
And, yes, Joseph. We know that gays never cheat on their partners or had pre-“marital” sex with countless others.
Joseph, I like you, not in the ‘man kind” of like, so I don’t want to argue with you, but surely you must see why many people, especially parents, have a problem with “gay marriage” and its long-term negative implications to a nation. What happened to “only wanting to be accepted?” It keeps expanding, doesn’t it, and with taxpayer funding, gay activist groups will go for whatever outrage is next. Anita Bryant’s concerns about homosexuals teaching and influencing kids about “alternative lifestyles” was prophetic.
– – –
Hey, suki, take your kids to the Olympics instead. It’s so healthy for young people.
You know what I like? It’s when people make “individual great leaps” based upon hard work and innovation that help mankind rather than “collective great leaps” based upon threats and political blackmail to help themselves and attack decency.
Sorry, suki. Here’s the corrected link: the Olympics.
“We know that gays never cheat on their partners or had pre-â€marital†sex with countless others.”
Come on, Woody, I also like you (in God’s way! That’s what we used to say on the playground when we didn’t want someone to think we like liked them), but let’s be intellectually honest here: with respect to cheating and previous partners, people are people. You know that; I know that. You can try arguing on moral grounds against gay marriage, but there is nothing inherent in same-sex sexual activity that is less safe than opposite-sex sexual activity. All things being equal, it comes down to individuals and the choices they make. Some people take stupid risks, and some people do not.
Joseph, I didn’t address one of your points. There’s a big difference between “unsafe sex” as we think of it and “deadly sex” as associated with gay society. I’ve had friends die of AIDS – needlessly, and none of them were heterosexuals, as they typically aren’t. Permissiveness has a price, and that price is higher for some.
Joseph, our comment #’s 13 & 14 crossed in the mail. However, my comment that follows yours perhaps makes a distinction that is important.
Final, as I have to go, we can argue whether or not homosexuality is a healthy or acceptable lifestyle without changing minds, but I do resent the courts and legislatures overriding the will of the voters and wasting tax money, which can be discussed in principle if you ignore the cause.
Wow thanks Woody. What a great link. I will definitely show them the video tonight and see if they want to attend next year’s events. It looks a lot like the parades here in California that they were so excited attend. San Fran vs. West Hollywood, not sure which was better. My son votes San Fran. Whereas my daughter said Sydney’s Gay Olympic back in 2002 was “more fun.”
Given that video, I can see why the International Olympics committee was so impressed and decided on Rio. Its fabulously creative and open minded. We definitely want the world to be a part of this.
You are a lot more cultured than I gave you credit for. My apologies for thinking otherwise. I’m glad you sit at home researching these gay events, you must be so tickled.
Woody, perhaps this explains your “gay mafia” hang-up (I don’t mean that disparagingly, I just think it’s a red herring that’s come up repeatedly in your comments). Let me make this concrete: I have a brother. He’s never been to San Francisco. He was born in the late 70’s. He went to a conservative Catholic school, and lives in an industrial Midwestern town. He’s been married to a man since 1999. They aren’t members of a “gay mafia”. They are boring homebodies who would rather do yardwork and have cookouts with their neighbors than go out dancing (unliek my parents who, in their 60’s, still go to danceclubs!).
In other words, if “gay culture” were ever inherently “unsafe”, it ain’t now, and it sure is not a monolithic thing. Individual people, individual choices. Like heterosexuals, some make dumb choices, and some make smart ones. That’s simply how it is.
Good point, Joseph. I wouldn’t have a problem with your brother. I remember a couple of guys who lived together in our neighborhood who were just regular neighbors, except for, you know, something that we didn’t mention. They had great parties, were good company, and one of them played the piano beautifully. It was a sad day when one got transferred to Dallas and they left.
While maybe it’s carried on by a minority, I do get tired of the activist gay agenda to push and push and to be more offensive, and now it’s getting bad in government schools. Gay activists are like the “race industry” led by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the SCLC, etc. They have to always have causes and outrages and to protest and complain if they’re going to keep getting money to support their luxury lives and self-importance.
It might be more productive for gay activists to fit in rather than to be offensive and different.
Schwarzenegger signed another bill to address a select group’s concern about milk and getting tail.
Glad you brought that up, Woody.
Arnold really has had an attack of sanity on all kinds of things.
Excellent on the tail docking. (What an appalling practice.)
Go, Arnold! Go, cow tails!
Woody, quite honestly, the only way change takes place is for people to kick up a huge and messy fuss.
Think back to the earlier days of feminism. Now your daughter and my niece have equal rights and privileges that, like it or not, required a lot of pushing, shoving and outraged shouting and demonstrating to accomplish.
Celeste, I appreciate your patience with all of your commenters and your tolerance of differing opinions, but I can’t believe you can find it in yourself to thank Woody for his contribution on the same thread he compares gay people to arsonists. You are far too desensitized to his vileness.
Your comment at 11:52 wasn’t visible before. Allow me to soften my complaint; though, I still think ignoring the nasty bigotry of his comments is far far far too kind.
Mavis, in our parts I’m a liberal.
But, that might give reg images of “Deliverance” and get him all worked up.
Harvey Milk’s biography, characterizes him as a 33 year old pedophile that pursued an underage boy of 16, who later killed himself.
“…sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure…At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.” (pages 30-31)
“On February 14th 1980 McKinley committed suicide by jumping off a ledge. He was 33, the same age when Milk and McKinley fell in love in 1963”
Jack Galen McKinley was Harvey Milks Boy friend (1963-69)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mayor_of_Castro_Street
Amazon link – http://www.amazon.com/Mayor-Castro-Street-Times-Harvey/dp/0312560850/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255476634&sr=1-2
I don’t think there is any question Milk was a pedophile and a liar. Did he work to change the lot of homosexuals for the better, sure he did but does that work when measured against his very dishonorable personal actions equate to having a day in his honor?
I don’t think so.
Pokey, I didn’t know about Milk’s sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy, but I confirmed that is in the biography. Are your surprised that a liberal culture which defends a pedophile named Polanski would celebrate a day of honor for another pedophile, this one a homosexual? I’m not.
This is one area where I have to draw a line. No pedophile should have a state day of honor for him, and no pedophile should be celebrated in our public schools, where students are being taught that such conduct is okay and that this is a civil rights issue. This is sick.
As I think about it, my main problem with the homosexual community isn’t with “the gay mafia” but more with its sneaky underground perverts and their protection of child predators. And, don’t tell me that heterosexuals prey on kids at nearly the same rate as homosexuals. Try to tell the choir boys that.
That’s it. No praise for an unrepentant child molester!
Celeste, can you defend this like you did Polanski?
Okay. I’m sorry, Celeste. You should delete that last comment.
The racism and hate in this comments section is really disappointing, Celeste. It wasn’t here a couple of years ago, the last time I visited. Guess even good blogs are going downhill in these tragic times.
Anyhow, re: Milk/16 year old boy…
Rather this was true or not, the age of consent was actually 16 in California when that relationship was alleged to have taken place. If Harvey Milk is a pedophile based on that relationship, so is republican rocker Ted Nugent, considering his first wife was 16 when they first started having sex, per both of their admissions.
Mavis, my eye clearly skipped over the arsonist remark. (And I’ve been gone all day teaching, et al. Just got home a few minutes ago. )
But I just now read it and I’m glad you flagged it. It is now gone.
Woody, I deleted both the racist comment that you pointed to, and the off the charts homophobic remark.
This is getting poisonous here and I’m going to delete a lot more if people can’t be civil.
There won’t be warnings. You’re grown-ups. Figure it out.
The LA Times doesn’t think there should be a Harvey Milk Day either. I disagree. But it doesn’t require vile remarks to have that disagreement.
So because you see racism and hate here Geoff you feel ok in posting a blatant lie? Your words below, the truth follows.
Anyhow, re: Milk/16 year old boy…
Rather this was true or not, the age of consent was actually 16 in California when that relationship was alleged to have taken place.
The Crazy-Quilt of
Our Age of Consent Laws
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
Few people seem to be aware of the crazy-quilt of our laws regarding the age of consent for sexual activity. Even fewer people seem to know anything about the historical background of the consent laws.
The common law, from which America gets much of its precedents in the legal field, set the age of consent at age ten. In other words, participating in sexual activity with someone above the age of ten did not result in the crime of “statutory” rape or child molesting. The activity may have come under other statutory or informal social regulations, but anyone over the age of ten could consent to a sexual activity.
During the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present one, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897. Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.
Feel free to accuse me of lying, but it’s not the case. I was thinking of the Ted Nugent situation and that’s where I came up with the assumption that the age of consent was 16 in the ’70s. I just did a search on Ted Nugent and it turns out he had his underage girlfriend sign over her emancipation, I guess back then that worked as a loophole. While I stand corrected on the age of consent, do you have a response to my Ted Nugent point? What is the difference between he and Milk, where pedophilia is concerned? Ted Nugent is a republican pundit (he thinks he’s a talented music artist, as well), heralded by the right and a frequent guest on FoxNews, conservative AM radio shows, et al. I also believe he recently threatened to kill the president. Tongue in cheek as it may have been, it’s not too patriotic now, is it? Anyway, either he and Milk are two peas in a pod when it comes to pedophilia, or they were both just partaking in what was acceptable in their time. Legal or not, a young adult dating a 16 year old was not as taboo then as it is today. Not saying it was ever right, just saying that standards have changed in that area over the years.
Celeste, I just looked at the Times editorial you refer to and find the reasoning for opposing an MLK day bizarre, that “Leno’s bill will just add to the hysteria surrounding gay rights,” because it encourages schools to teach about him and his cause, hence giving conservatives justification to claim that the schools teach homosexuality. That seems a specious arguments, since conservatives like those who populate this blog can make up their own “justifications” for pretty much any view they hold, they don’t need a law like this one. (I’m glad it’s not a bank/ school holiday, though – we have enough of those as it is, and they’re expensive and inconvenient.)
I strongly suspect that this editorial was written by Bob Greene, the Times’ unabashed conservative who told a recent meeting of self-appointed Neighborhood Council and Homeowner Assn. leaders (who tend to skew older and conservative) that he writes a number of these and enjoys behind able to express his views without having to sign his name to them and taking the flak. (This was written up with I THINK if I recall correctly a video excerpt, in L A CityWatch, the blog of the NC’s – in which your articles are reprinted from time to time, including the previous one on Cooley/Trutanich declaring pot shops illegal, and the earlier one “Trutanich, Taggers and the Madness of Really Bad Injunctions.” Somewhat surprisingly, I may add, given the skew of that blog and its readers, but it shows a certain openness to opposing or at least different views.)
What no comment, from Rob Thomas inviting Suki to join him at the next gay pride parade? They could be the ground breaking “inter-racial” couple mentioned in Suki’s comment.
Yeah I have a response, I don’t even know where Ted Nugent lives or care much about him. However, if he dies and his state tries to recognize him by giving him his own day I’ll be sure to investigate his life and comment on it. This is how liberals with no game respond to an issue they lied about, they try to throw a curve ball, yours being the Nugent comments.
My dislike of Milk goes further than the obvious pedophile conduct he displayed, he lied about other issues as well in an attempt to make himself out to be something he wasn’t. Got to give the guy credit for working the head up ass media, he got elected didn’t he?
Tap dance around it all you want but you did lie, you didn’t say anything abut assuming you flat out stated…
Anyhow, re: Milk/16 year old boy…
Rather this was true or not, the age of consent was actually 16 in California when that relationship was alleged to have taken place.
—————–
“Actually 16”? Sounds like more than an assumption to me.
WBC wants to have a special day of recognition for a pedophile, how surprising. There’s nobody else that might be a better role model for the gay community?
Celeste, now you’re giving in to the radical left by deleting my first comment, which made reasonable points, despite your objection to my choice of one word. I’m very disappointed in your selective censorship. That’s a good way to turn this blog into a left-only site.
Destruction is destruction, no matter what criminal or mobs commit it, and opinions on that should be considered rather than blocked. You live in a world with all types of people and might as well acknowledge it and deal with it.
But, since you have a new standard, I’ll let you know about even the most minor words of offense that raise to the level at which liberals would whine if they were about them.
Perhaps you’ll want to erase these:
So, in joining in the “new sensitivity,” I demand that those terribly upsetting words and terms above and any future attacks against conservatives MUST STOP or be immediately censored AND that those offending commenters be banned from commenting at this site. Also, you should do a
“look-back” to erase similar past offenses.
You wrote, “the only way change takes place is for people to kick up a huge and messy fuss. Consider this a fuss, which is apparently how you and the others operate.
Here’s the relevant law in NY, where the reported relationship took place :
“Sexual contact” with a person less than 17 but at least 14, by a perpetrator who is at least five years older than the victim is “Sexual abuse in the third degree,” a class B misdemeanor. (NY Penal Law § 130.55.)
(The age of consent in NY is 17.)
To call Milk a “pedophile” based on this relationship is, of course, tendentious bullshit at best considering the term was created by psychiatrists to define attraction to pre-pubescent children, but look at the lame creatures who are amping up this accusation in the thread. I don’t think that pedophilia, even under the law, results in Class B misdemeanors, but I’ll let our “law enforcment experts” hash this out (undoubtedly with some perverted insults tossed in my direction.)
Frankly one of the creepiest things regarding what has been reported about this relationship of Milk’s with the 16-year old is that Milk recruited him…to work on the Goldwater campaign. Yuk !!!!
“My dislike of Milk goes further…”
Who would have guessed ?
I am not, incidentally, defending Milk’s judgement in every choice or action he made in his entire life, but I AM defending honoring him for his civil rights actions after he entered public life. What Milk did (a class B misdemeanor in legal terms) regarding a 16 year old boy in a period when he was first dealing with his homosexuality is far less immoral than, say, what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did holding other human beings fully in bondage for their entire lives. It may not have been illegal at the time, but today their actions would be serial felonies, not misdemeanors, and the height of inhuman, perverse conduct. And it didn’t take a genius to figure that out, even then, given their own conflicted feelings about their own actions. Yet I honor their achievements.
I will not be reading Woody’s response to my last comments (I pretty much skip anything that extends beyond two sentences anymore), partly because I know it’s going to be the same old “you’re gay” or “Child molester!” crap. You can always bet his next comment will be some recycled combo of whiny narcissism, childishness and refusal to take any responsibility for his trollish intent, a celebration of his own ignorance and supreme dishonesty.
Whaaaaaaaaa! Celeste, reg is being mean to me. Make him stop and delete his comments!
I’m not going to say anything bad about him, and I’m not even going to complain about his extensive research to justify an older man preying of a 16-year-old boy for his sexual pleasures, as we should never be judgmental.
But, let’s jump on our founding fathers! So what if they’re not here to defend themselves. They should have thought about the future before they bought slaves and raped them. Given the history of our country and its founders, nothing rises to their level of evil, so everything…everything, including pedophilia (which it really isn’t)…is justified.
reg, made those points better than I could.
You go, reg!
Your ability to forgive the actions of a liar and a pedophile whose politics you agree with is really a surprise Reg. Making the stretch to George Washington and Thomas Jeffersonis is another off topic curve ball as well as your statement on how the term pedophile was coined.
Maybe you should join us all in 2009 at some point.
Sure Fire @37, once again you totally mis-state what I said, you’re a reading-challenged illiterate as are your cohorts kelvin and whatever. I never said I WANT a day for Milk (or not – I don’t know anything about him except in the broadest terms – or who’s right about his personal life, you or Lawson; if he had a relationship with a 16-yr old I think that’s wrong, whether or not it was legal and I don’t think it would have been.)
What I said was that the REASON the Times (presumably conservative Republican Greene) stated against the day is specious. This “reason” is a generic one against having a day for ANYONE who’d personify gay rights: it has nothing to do with the particular merits of Milk. I don’t care to get involved in this dispute: I’m only responding because once again one of you rightwingers are dragging MY opinions into something in a way that utterly distorts/ falsifies them to “prove” what you want them to.
They deserve it, those homophobes!
Yeah, right. That would be like censoring comments on a post because a preferred class claimed offense. How likely is that?
Hey, reg, out of true concern for you, I found an article on someone with problems just like yours.
You’re in my thoughts, reg. I’m sure there’s help, and we need Obama’s health care plan if you want to get it fast.
Sure Fire, I stand corrected on the history of California’s age of consent. I don’t know what else to say. My using “actually” was more arrogance than a cognitive attempt at lying. I honestly thought the age of consent was 16 in the ’70s (good thing I was too young to date, then…), and Ted Nugent’s situation was one of the reasons. I remember watching one of his VH1 biography things about a decade ago. They had this first girlfriend on there. I remember her saying, “today, it would be criminal”.
So, you say that only in the event Ted Nugent is honored as a state holiday, would you have a problem with him? As it stands, you’re ok with him? When he’s on FoxNews railing against liberals, you’re nodding in agreement, and not flipping the station in protest that they’d have an admitted pedophile on their show? If you can obviously give Ted Nugent a pass, it’s hard for me to believe that your oroblem with Milk having a relationship with a 16 year old boy has anything to do with any moral stance. It’s obvious rooted in partisan politics.
Surefire – you’re totally lame. Try responding like an adult. I cited the relevant law and the relevant definition of pedophilia. You just stutter and sputter in response. But then nobody here ever confused you with a deep thinker.
Incidentally, what kind of “genius” does it take to call comparing the private morality and activities of public men, honored in the public sphere with holidays, memorials and such, a “curve ball.” It’s an obvious and utterly appropriate analogy, but apparently it bends the minds of some of our “deep thinkers.”
Incidentally, one of the reasons I’ve quit reading Woody’s long comments is because I get tired of reading about anal sex.
Following up on my earlier comment, there IS a video of Times’ conservative columnist Robert/Bob Greene on L A CityWatch, Oct. 6th, speaking to a meeting of NC people urging them to take a more independent and activist stance against City Hall. Not surprisingly, he’s one of the reasons the paper endorsed Trutanich (I’ve heard/ read about the exit of Jim Newton having something to do with this endorsement and overall bias, too); a couple of months ago their whole editorial board held a meeting with Trutanich and the 1-hour audio is posted on the Opinion blog. Lots of softball lobs to Trutanich to draw him out in a way that makes him look good and gives him a pass on having to answer tough questions like whether or not he’s done a cost-benefit analysis to support assertions that he’s saving money even as he wants to expand the dept. by dozens of lawyers and hundreds of private police — short answer, no. Greene is the one who assures him Chick (the former City Controller whose endorsement he sought by promising to uphold her position but now repudiates and who called him out very harshly for lying to her) won’t come up, and chuckles about her dismissively…This audio AND the video from just a week ago are VERY revealing, worthwhile for anyone who wants a glimpse behind the scenes of how Times Opinions are rendered and by whom. It’s one thing to have signed Op-Eds by people across the political spectrum, and diverse points of view are a very good thing: but when Editorials veer sharply to the right one minute and back towards the middle the next, it makes it imperative to not just look at the Editorial bio’s but to catch the writers in their most candid and revealing moments. (I’m looking forward to more such Times’ opinion postings on other subjects — I commend them for posting almost the whole interview without edits, sans transcript — and now that Greenstein has replaced Newton.)
OK. now Kelvin and his pro-Trutanich trolls will accuse me of some other weird ulterior motive like he said I must be lobbying for Mexican drug cartels because I seemed to know too much about the subject of the medical cannabis issue (a few mins. on the net can be a dangerous thing, I guess) and Trutanich’s betrayals of that community for his own purposes – even though my issue was integrity and upholding the law per its intent, and even though like many moderates I supported someone who was OPPOSED by the med cannabis community for being too TOUGH on illegal shops, something Trutanich promised to change in their favor…And instead he and Cooley are attracting lawsuits and wasting material and human resources for their partisan, career-serving motives. While SureFire will claim…something. (Woody blithely carrying on whether or not anyone pays attention to him is actually at least able to do so with some self-awareness and humor now and then: Geoff, just think of him as Theatre of the Absurd/ Comic Relief, whatever. NOT too seriously.)
reg: Incidentally, one of the reasons I’ve quit reading Woody’s long comments is because I get tired of reading about anal sex.
Yeah, reg, why just read when you want to participate?
I think it’s great that you are so firmly behind and bonded to the gay community. You stick up for them.
I’ve never heard Nugent on FOX, not once and I have no problem people screaming about liberals, I do it daily. I watch ESPN mostly, something Snitch Reg stays clear of because most athletes don’t have the capacity Snitch Reg requires when speaking our language. Only Snitch Reg knows the proper way to put a thought down on a blog, I think he also invented our entire vocabulary.
I’m not giving anyone a pass, all I know is what you’ve said and as someone who was never into Nugent or his music your claim that I’m partisan when looking at the two is weak.
When people are brought into the public light their history is going to be examined. Nugent, from what I’ve heard is pretty much a far right type whose in the face style has pissed people off. He’s not looking at having his own recognized day and comparing him to Milk doesn’t make sense to me. In my first post I acknowledged Milk’s efforts on behalf of gays but I think maybe there’s a better icon for gays to want honored based on his own sorry behavior going beyond this issue.
As for Snitch Reg, I’m sorry, I used a sports term and your lame old repugnant gutter dwelling vulgar filthy ass is anti-sport relishing only in your ridiculous attempts to show what a pompous arrogant bitch you are with each post you make when someone responds back to you in a manner you don’t like.
Long enough sentence you left wing elitist fraud? I think you top the list of arrogant bitches I’ve seen, heard or read the words of. If you and Joy Behar had a child he would have the DNA required to be the Anti-Christ.
What a pathetic old snitch.
WBC, you have a lot of hate in you for Trutanich, try yoga. After I post to Snitch Reg I usually hit the weights or work out on the heavy bag for awhile. I should thank him for helping me keep in shape but I can’t stand snitches, never could.
Everyone, dial the personal attacks back a little more, please. (B-word and all that.) Thanks.
“Snitch Reg….[ad infinitum]”
Can it, already. This crap is getting old.
Sure Fire, note that you were called out on your B-word, but the obscenities of reg were ignored or simply called “and all that.” We have to join the left-wing movement to not be censored or singled out. For instance, you can say that “F’n Sarah Palin” but don’t dare do that with Michelle Obama or Oprah.
There are new rules here, and you know that when liberals can’t win arguments that they try to shout down those with whom they disagree.
So, get on board the Love Train! Being irresponsible and stupid might be a hoot.
Russian gays express disappointment in Clinton
They were so sure that Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno were an item.
Bonus – the article mentions poetry.
Geoff, I take back anything I said that suggested we should just ignore Woody because he’s not as bad as all that. He is working on being every bit as intentionally offensive and lacking evenn in self-redeeming humor or self-awareness as SureFire etc. Yes, I wish reg would not respond in kind to those who demonstrate that the only thing worse than abject stupidity is foul-mouthed abject stupidity invoking body parts and things you are advised to do with them – but I noted that even when reg tried to compliment SureFire it backfired with more of the same. (SureFire, the only thing I want to do when forced to read you people is take a shower: believe me, if you’re doing yoga, even punching a bag, it’s NOT working for you. Try remedial reading and Ethics 101, then onto the other jr. high school courses you must have missed. NOW LEAVE ME OUT OF YOUR REFERENCES AND FALSIFICATIONS, GO PLAY AMONGST YOUR OWN mentally and ethically impaired equals.)
Sure Fire, why you’re at the remedial reading and comprehension program, see if you can make it all the way through a piece in the conservative-leaning Daily News, “Why Is L A’s District Attorney Helping Mexican Drug Cartels?” by Bruce Mirken. Arguing that “on legally dubious grounds” he and Trutanich are undermining the will of the people in passing 215 (not to mention, Trutanich callously using the pro-medical community to campaign FOR him, intending to throw them under the bus all along.) Yeah, I think that this sort of thing is really, really abjectly stupid as well as the epitime of unethical, and it’s just one of many issues that these 2 demonstrate that with. So when the acolytes of these dangerous idiots accuse ME of lobbying for the drug cartels for making arguments similar to Mirken’s…well, they just show how dangerously stupid as well as devious they all are and WHY we must keep a sharper than ever eye on them.
SureFire, I meant “while you’re at the remedial comp” program… DO read Mirken’s article: he makes me sound very mild on these two ethically challenged incompetents; unlike him, I don’t state their policy “borders on the insane.” I don’t think they’re insane: they probably knew and cynically calculated EVERYTHING they’re doing now, except not being too bright, missed the part Mirken adds about “enriching murderous thugs” in Mexican drug cartels in furtherance of their rightwing agenda.
Finally, finally, back to the issue of Milk: the Governor made clear he was signing the bill because Milk was being seen as a symbol of gay rights in California, and represented the umbrella issues involved; the Times editorial Celeste mentioned which I elaborated on objected to ANYTHING being taught about the movement he represents in principle. You and the others who go on about Milk’s personal life are just trying to hijack the whole issue for partisan reasons by looking for red herrings (LIKE with any other issue, incl. the pot dispensaries, gang intervention programs, etc.).
Sure Fire,
FoxNews regularly has Nugent, a pedophile, on as a guest. You boycotting? That was the question. That was the question Goeff asked you. Do you watch FoxNews? If so, you support pedophilia. Nugent dated a 16 year old girl when he was in his twenties.
Woody, this is a private blog, it’s not the government. Celeste can drop anyone she wants, for any reason. It’s not censorship. She’s not an elected official. Since we’ve been warned about personal insults, I’ll try to put this in the most non insulting way possible. You’re, let’s see…challenged, when it comes to understanding the difference between government censorship and getting kicked off a blog for being annoying.
If liberals see concern about Milk’s pedophilia as a red herring, then liberals (I mean us, of course) owe Larry Craig an apology for concern about him.
OK, don’t think that I’m so naïve. What I said about censorship has nothing to do with government, although you can be sure that the government does censor people in discussions, sayyy, like Townhall Meetings.
Celeste broke a trust when she deleted my comment, so I know that she has no problem with censorship if she disagrees with what’s said. That’s too bad.
I also have the choice to not comment on sites that censor discussion. I think that I could find a conservative friendly site somewhere on the internet. You would be hard pressed to find another me.
This should have happend to Harvey Milk.
Instead idiots in CA celebrate Milk and offer him to our children as the GAY hero, insead of the child molester that he is.
WBC, you are a posturing ass and there’s no hope for improvement. For many posts when I first came to this site Reg unleashed vugar attack after vulgar attack on anything I wrote. Did you or any other moron speak to that? It was only after realizing that the only thing a drunken witless shill like he understands is a like response did I resort to a similar response to him. You have no standing on the issue.
Now all you have to do is take a look at this boards history and you’ll see I’m telling the truth. If you’re not going to do it than you’re just posting so you can sit back, have a nice glass of wine and think ” My I’m quite the witty one”.
OK, did you see The Piano? How about The Fearless Vampire Hunters or anything else having to do with Polanski ( Wait, I saw both!!). If so does that equate to you supporting child rape? Get a grip dude, I watch little on FOX, I watch sports and I read all types of political books. Do I watch some FOX, of course but I don’t have time to sit through any whole shows except Tru Blood and when The Shield was on it, before that OZ.
Samuel, as long as Reg wants to be an asshole I’ll play back.
It’s worth noting that in Woody’s hallowed ground of high morals and right-wing rectiitude (Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi) the age of consent is 16. Of course, I’m sure back in 1964 homosexuals were subject to prosecution whatever their age, just because God wants it that way. Also worth noting, just for laughs, that when Milk had this reported relationship, he was a Goldwater Republican working on Wall Street.
And it doesn’t take any effort on my part to bring out the total asshole in Misfire.
Celeste broke a trust when she deleted your comment? WTF? What trust?!?!? HA HA HA!!! Woody, I used to just call you retarded to mess around. Now I feel bad because I think you really are mentally disabled.
Sure Fire, what is “The Piano”? I know Polanski directed The Pianist. I don’t normally hold simple typos or slips of the tongue against commentors. But I have to ask, does talking about Polanski get you so excited that you forget the titles of movies he directed? Kind of bizarre, don’t you think? What is it about Polanski that gets you so worked up you start mis firing (no pun intended, ..your screenname) the names of his projects?
Pokey, what do you think of Ted Nugent? Admittedly nailed 16 year old girls when in his late 20s. Care to denounce him? Also, care to boycott the foxnews network for having him on like once a week? Care to denounce the radio one or clear channel networks for giving him a radio show (they’re both right wing institutions, and they own the whole radio dial, so it’s one of the two).
If that’s all you have OK you don’t have much. Whatever you do avoid the heart of the content. That you even corrected me shows what, your a big Polanski fan? Whatever Okie Dokey, my point was made and you going on about Nugent speaks more to a man crush than anything I posted.
Oh wait…”you’re”.
Celeste,
Instead of deleting offensive comments, might I suggest disemvoweling instead?
reg, in comment 69 (snicker), continues to defend pedophilia with broadside attacks against conservatives that have nothing to do with it. Tell us, reg, how much time to do you spend on the NAMBLA site each day? It must be a lot given your expertise in man-boy love.
“OK,” I’ve been on this site a lot longer than you and think that I know the ground rules. One “trusts” an umpire to call ball and strikes the same for both teams, but when he squeezes the strike zone for only the team that he doesn’t want to win, then he has violated the accepted trust that previously existed. The cheated team can take their ball and go play on another field, or they can play by the new and unfair decisions of the ump. In this case, I’m arguing with the ump and may even kick dirt on homeplate.
I haven’t read Woody’s comments but I’m sure they contained something about the urgent need to end the epidemic of legal “pedophilia” in cracker country…hopefully he’ll spend more time ending this terrible shame that surrounds him daily and less time accusing people here of being child molesters. Otherwise we’re going to have to send General Sherman back down there to straighten things out.
Sherman can burn Atlanta. The decent people, aka crackers to you, moved to the suburbs, and the city, run over with darkies, to return the labeling favor, could use a makeover. Destruction Bonus – the gay neighborhoods are in the midtown area.
Well, on the up side now homophobic rednecks in California can save money by just adding an “i” to their ‘I don’t celebrate MLK Day’ signs.